Fed report: Kansas best NBAF option

But report also questions rising costs of Manhattan project

A government-backed committee of the National Research Council issued a report Friday saying the United States would have adequate biosecurity protections even if plans for a proposed $1.14 billion lab in Kansas are scaled back.

The study was prepared by a subcommittee formed this spring to look at three options for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility that is to be built in Manhattan near the Kansas State University campus. The report was in response to tighter federal revenues and budget controls that are forcing agencies to rethink spending priorities.

DHS asked the National Research Council to review the threats of foreign animal disease, the capabilities needed to address such threats and analyze options for building the lab as proposed or scaling back the size and scope. A third option included keeping the current research lab at Plum Island, N.Y.

While the committee found the need for a lab hadn’t changed since the project was first proposed in 2006, it did find that DHS had two options for completing the goal of developing the capabilities with a laboratory designed specifically to respond to a biosecurity threat. However, the report concluded both options had drawbacks.

“We really did not rank any of the options that we were given,” said Terry McElwain, chairman of the committee. “There is a really more thorough and comprehensive analysis that would need to be made by decision-makers before a decision is made, and we didn’t feel we could do that.”

The first option would be to continue designing and constructing the new lab in Kansas, which would give the United States a large-animal lab with so-called Level 4 security to handle such deadly diseases as foot and mouth. However, because the costs for the project have escalated, the committee suggested DHS look for alternative funding sources. It was noted that certain research programs at a lab in Australia have been supported through public-private partnerships with the agriculture industry.

The second option would be to scale back the size of the project and disburse research of diseases across the country.

A third option, which would leave current research at Plum Island and rely on foreign labs to conduct research and deter threats, was rejected by the committee.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Republican U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran issued a joint statement Friday applauding the committee’s report. They called on DHS to move forward with acquiring the land in Manhattan and beginning construction.

“The NAS fittingly recognizes that the need for a centralized laboratory focused on research, diagnostics and surveillance is imperative. That laboratory should be NBAF, and it starts with construction of the central utility plant. We are pleased this promising review concludes any outstanding evaluations of NBAF,” they said.

McElwain said it was unclear why costs have risen from estimates of $450 million when the project was first announced. One reason, he said, could be the changes in the facility’s design to “harden” it to protect against the accidental release of deadly pathogens from a tornado or other natural disaster.

State officials had actively promoted northeast Kansas as a potential site for the lab, seeing it as crucial to efforts to create a strong biosciences industry and create more than 300 jobs that would pay an average of more than $75,000 a year. The state is committed to issuing up to $105 million in bonds to help with the project.

Brownback spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag said Kansas was open to further discussions with DHS “to move the project forward as soon as possible.” She added that the state had a network of private and public partners supporting the project.

Congress has approved $90 million in construction funds for the project, which has yet to be released pending recent DHS studies. In May, a House committee approved $75 million more for the next fiscal year to continue the project.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

common sense says it's such a bad idea. but how often does that prevail? it's all about the money and influence.

update: and i don't care how many thumbs down i get. you don't put a center studying incredibly contagious animal diseases in the middle of cattle country that can't withstand a strong tornado. that's just straight ignorant.

"In its assessment of the third option, the report says that maintaining the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and leveraging foreign laboratories for large animal Biosafety Level 4 needs would avoid the costs of constructing a new replacement facility. However, the facilities at Plum Island do not meet current standards for high biocontainment."

“ that we were given,” said Terry McElwain, chairman of the committee. “There is a really more thorough and comprehensive analysis that would need to be made by decision-makers before a decision is made, and we didn’t feel we could do that.”

Do the politicians not understand that most Kansas do NOT want that stuff here? Check around! They're so anxious to try to show a job increase under their watch that they have no concern as to what risks & problems they're bringing into a population center of the state.

Announced from the floor of the KS senate chamber, while posing for pictures with the bi-partisan Consortium of Cronies, that someday it would the "corridor" stretching along I-70 from Manhattan to Kansas City could "someday find cure for cancer." He spread his arms out, like Moses, or John Brown's mural everybody clapped and clapped that day. All that money and to think one tiny screw up miles and miles of trenches to burn and bury cattle carcasses, and if it's a human bug well it will be quite a sick show. Read Michael Christopher Carroll's "Lab 257" about how it all went bad at Plum Island, especially during a hurricane, the killing of the cattle ... putting them in chemical stew pots to dispose of the bodies etc. All that money those guys in Kansas, bi-partisan, rubbing their hands .... all that money. Meanwhile back to the drought... check out latest Harper's magazine "Broken Heartland: The Looming Collapse of Agriculture on the Great Plains" by Wil S. Hylton, the cover story. Many smart Kansans interviewed in it. None from the statehouse.

Why oh Why did Kansans who were against this wait so long to stand up? There were meetings to protest it, long before Kansas was selected. The government accountability office was saying then, that there had not been enough investigating to see if it would be feasible to bring this type of facility with those deadly of viruses and diseases off the island and onto land. Human life has no value in this country, money always trumps.

No way in h*** they're going to let this bloated pig get away. Waaaaay tooooo many dollars to be lost if this lil' piggy wanders away. Go get 'dem dollars Brownie. Soooiiiieeee! $$$$$$$$$$$$$ chaaa ching!